Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[SebC]

My biggest issue with the bridge is that it doesn't seem to be a particularly useful location. I live 800m away (walking distance, not straight line) from where this bridge will go, yet I can't ever see myself using it.

Originally Posted by The Goon

it (the paint) was only good to temperatures as low as -12 C.

Sounds like the LRT switches.

[TorqueDog]

Two things:
1. I wish the bridge was properly tendered for the design. The St. Patrick's bridge submissions all looked far better than this. Following the proper process at the beginning of this project would have surely paid dividends ...
2. ... because as feared by everyone who was painted with the 'nay-sayer' brush, this project's construction time and costs are several million dollars and several months on the side of uncomfortable. Consider that the bridge has already been delayed multiple times due to shoddy manufacturing in Spain, as everyone who opposed a Calatrava-designed structure was concerned about, given Calatrava's history. The bridge was supposed to open in fall of 2010, only to be pushed back to January 2011, which was then pushed back to June 2011, which has now been pushed back to who knows when (the city sure doesn't).

Originally Posted by Boblobla

What about Druh Farell's Peach Bridge?

There are far too many jokes to make about this, and every single one of them makes me gag a little.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by The Goon

I understand that the paint was stripped because it (the paint) was only good to temperatures as low as -12 C.

Originally Posted by I_am_Beast

Hopefully not the metal, we hit -30 and the bridge contracts falling into the river....

Is it time to tell the haters everywhere that the bridge will be heated and have A/C in the summer, to really push them over the edge?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

Is it time to tell the haters everywhere that the bridge will be heated and have A/C in the summer, to really push them over the edge?

Is this a joke?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

Is this a joke?

While its not hilarious, it was in jest.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Is it time to tell the haters everywhere that the bridge will be heated and have A/C in the summer, to really push them over the edge?

Excellent we're building a big red dildoy hobo shelter.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Excellent we're building a big red dildoy hobo shelter.

There is also a crack pipe dispenser on the south end.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

There is also a crack pipe dispenser on the south end.

And a latte dispenser on the north end.

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I do suspect that the bridge will be slightly overbudget, say total of $30 million, MAX.

Damn, I totally should have pinned you down on a wager when you were still saying the City would not be on the hook for an extra dime.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja

Damn, I totally should have pinned you down on a wager when you were still saying the City would not be on the hook for an extra dime.

Is the overage actually on the cities dime though?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

There is also a crack pipe dispenser on the south end.

Nah that programs been canceled.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I'm just going to quickly address these two points.

The bridge perhaps isn't "necessary," however the existing pedestrian crossings in the area are narrow and over capacity. They are narrow enough to create bad interactions between bikes and pedestrians. It's not that the bridge was close to two other pedestrian crossings, it's that there wasn't enough capacity on the other two bridges. When there is capacity issues, we don't complain if the city adds another road lane on an existing road, we wouldn't complain if the city just widened the existing pedestrian bridges, why would we complain if the cheapest option was just to build another bridge 200m to the east?

There's no way to widen the pedestrian crossing under the LRT bridge, without spending exorbitant amounts of money and/or shutting down the LRT line for an extended period of time. The 10th Street bridge would be somewhat difficult to widen as well, it certainly wouldn't be a cheap job. To add the same amount of capacity as the peace bridge, you would have to add 3 metres on to each side. 3 metres would have to be cantilevered, and to do that, you are probably talking about a major renovation of the entire bridge. Would it cost $25 million, I don't know, but probably close to that.

The Peace Bridge has separated bike lanes, and level entrances, so that bike riders can pedal across easily, while leaving plenty of room for pedestrians. The LRT bridge doesn’t really have ramps that allow bikers to just ride up and ride across. The 10th Street Bridge has very narrow sidewalks that hardly allow a person walking a bike to pass a pedestrian, never mind ride around them.

$25 million is a lot of money, but is it really a lot of money for a pedestrian bridge such as this? No, not really. Even the very simplest of bridges wasn’t going to be built for 2, 5, or even 10 million here. And that’s even if you allow piers in the river. Maybe you could argue that the very simplest of bridges could have been built for $15 million, but I don’t think you want to spend ZERO money on making the bridge look good. I don’t think it’s really reasonable to think a bridge could have been built for less than $18-20 million, and I’d gladly spend a few extra million to make it a great looking bridge. Now, all may not like that looks of the bridge, but having seen the plans, I can tell you that the design quality is second to none. Personally, I think the bridge looks great.

I do suspect that the bridge will be slightly overbudget, say total of $30 million, MAX.

Even a dime over after the snit that the city put up that it would be right on budget would be completely unacceptable, especially considering all of the crap that out esteemed council people went through to push this bridge through.

And yes, to me its still not inspiring.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

While its not hilarious, it was in jest.

I would not have been entirely surprised if it did have some kind of heating to keep it from icing up in the winter.

(The A/C thing should've been a giveaway though. )

[CaptainCrunch]

Personally I want the Steve Martin Red and White Wine dispensers on each end with the little umbrellas.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja

Damn, I totally should have pinned you down on a wager when you were still saying the City would not be on the hook for an extra dime.

I see Sun readers still don't need to bother themselves with silly details like contract terms......or facts

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by 4X4

That's funny... I pretty much think the opposite of everything you said.

- It's not fair to pick on Druh for the BRF
- The bridge was not really necessary
- It looks great. Sorry that it's not brown concrete!
- $25 mil is not small potatoes, it's $25 fricken million.

All that said, I still like and support this bridge. Maybe it's the traveler in me, but after going to many other cities that have unique buildings and structures, coming home to Calgary is somewhat underwhelming. Say what you* want about 'wasting' money on extravagant pedestrian bridges, but this Calgary taxpayer is just fine with it.

*you refers to anyone. Not necessarily the poster quoted.

The city is trying to push alternative commenting methods. To do so, you need to make it mildly convenient. So from that standpoint they need the bridge. I use the 3rd street one right now and it's packed with walkers joggers and bikers. They need the capacity and it's going to take 10 or 15 min off many commutes.

The design of the bridge is fine but the fire red is silly. For most of the year Calgary is a white or brown city and you'll be able to see that bridge stand out from space.

And 25mil is small potatoes compared to what tax payees spend on infrastrucute all over this stretched out city. My point was that much of my taxes go to pay for stuff that people in the burbs should be paying for. If people are so offended by a 25mil bridge why is developing our city all across the prairies no big deal? The cost of maintaining this city is going to skyrocket over the decades and it has nothing to do with the people who will be regularly using that bridge.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I see Sun readers still don't need to bother themselves with silly details like contract terms......or facts

We'll see about those facts. Theed sounds like he has some insider knowledge on this topic, and I trust when he says we'll be footing the bill for some additional costs. Construction contracts are hardly airtight, as I alluded to earlier in this thread.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

The design of the bridge is fine but the fire red is silly. For most of the year Calgary is a white or brown city and you'll be able to see that bridge stand out from space.

Yeah! Why paint it red? They should paint it so it blends in with dead grass!

[JustAnotherGuy]

I don't mind having a nice new bridge. I was walking downtown yesterday for the first time in a long time and I really like the work they are doing on the path ways. So this bridge will fit with that.

What I don't like about this bridge but I will get over it.
1. The fact that they called in the Peace Bridge for the wrong reasons. I think they are just trying to make a bad situation better by using the military. I wonder if the military takes this as a bit of an insult.
2. The color red. I am not sure how it will look.
3. The delays of course.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

We'll see about those facts. Theed sounds like he has some insider knowledge on this topic, and I trust when he says we'll be footing the bill for some additional costs. Construction contracts are hardly airtight, as I alluded to earlier in this thread.

Ah yes, the guru of contract law.

Regardless, I wasn't arguing against YNAT, but no one knows anything without reading the contract. I would assume these is some sort of provision for overrun costs to be recouped from the city if it goes x% over due to x,x,x factors, etc. Again, you'd need to read the whole contract to figure it out.
But the Sun readers who rage over any overrun on the project as essentially misinformed.